Remove the BG10 achievement please

[Treim 489]

3 hours ago, Volin said:

Fire can not only solve your problems, but also the problems of your mate, what makes it absolutely superior as starting option imo.

And it will stay that way which is fine. I think the biggest detractor of versatility in a game(mode) is when there is somewhat regularly occuring scenarios where no matter how good you play options(in this case factions) become unplayable or rely heavily on support (of especially meta solutions) which further incentivizes the meta solution.
That doesn't even mention that it is also less fun to know that basically every 10th or so map there is basically nothing you can do yourself and need help from others.
Allowing every faction to at least be (more or less) solo playable against "normal" scenarios in game is probably the best thing you can do to enhance playrates of those factions. That won't make them the most popular faction by a longshot but at least you open up the possibility of playing these in random groups without frustrating everyone from the getgo.
I think in a secondary step you could introduce changes to Shadow, Nature and frost to make them more viable in 10's but those will also have to be considered in other scenarios. The "quick and dirty" solution to the problem described above and my last post is to just remove vigils as a possibility at t2 which from what i remember the code structure of rPvE maps to be, is fairly easy. (correct me if I'm wrong as I am not really involved in this stuff anymore for at least 2 years or so)

Edited March 3 by Treim

[Volin 494]

I still think a small increase to the timer would already open up 10s for more decks (reliably).

I personally don't think LS air maps are the biggest problem. On the one hand it is a rare thing to happen and still the motm that were like this were some of the most enjoying motms ever. Plus it comes to addition that even the best groups I played in usually decided to skip those if they occur randomly or if we tried them we failed hard every single time.

I think a possible solution for more diversity could be a slightly increased timer and/or little more starting energy to reduce waiting game. 

Even if you play meta decks the timer is really harsh on harder maps.

For sure 10s can and should have a certain fail rate, but just in my humble opinion it could be a little bit lower, just slightly.

This changes would be quite simple and make more diversity possible.

 

 

Btw were drifting off like crazy here 😁

[Treim 489]

3 hours ago, Volin said:

I still think a small increase to the timer would already open up 10s for more decks (reliably).

That is true, would especially open up deck versatility for t2-t4 though.  If we just talk about diversity in t1, I still think the biggest problem is that 3 factions can get somewhat reliably in situations that are completely unplayable and fire also has a really hard time (at least in random matches). A secondary effect my proposed change on the game could have though, is that non fire starts are still slower than fire and with increased occurence of these in single matches a slight increase in game time might become necassary to further enable the viability of these changes anyway, especially if the assumption is that at least some more varitey in t2-t4 strategies is valued.

Quote

I personally don't think LS air maps are the biggest problem. On the one hand it is a rare thing to happen and still the motm that were like this were some of the most enjoying motms ever. Plus it comes to addition that even the best groups I played in usually decided to skip those if they occur randomly or if we tried them we failed hard every single time.

For Motm's I agree. I just think (and as you mentioned already) if those are basically unplayable in random play you have a problem entirely. I guess the question is what you want to balance 10's around - random play or motm play. Personally I think random play is the way to go. If even the best teams have insane fail rates, you either have a massive player skill issue (wouldn't assume that) or a balancing issue imo.
Also just removing Vigils, only really trivialize things for mostly fire t1. Especially Shadow and Frost and to a lesser extent nature will still have a really hard time if it's just twilight brains + 3 Treefiends/Mana beasts + Lost Dancers + Shields. It is just going from blatantly unplayable to extremely difficult. Obviously teamplay is still advised in those situations as well, it's just not strictly mandatory.

I think the key questions in terms of balance philosophy to be answered are:

Balance around motm's or random play.
Is a broadening of viable strategies for Motm 10 wanted, if yes in which stage of a match (t1, t2-3, post t4) and by how much (also for each individual stage).

--> TL;DR increasing t1 viability by removing vigils and further incentivizing deck viability by minor time limit changes is probably the most efficient way forward for random play imo. If only argued from a t1 perspective I'd probably still say that Vigils are the single biggest hindrance.
If you prioritize Motm you probably can do nothing for t1 realistically besides rebalancing t1 of nature, frost, shadow (would also solve the t1 issue in random play). Overall deck variability would still increase by increasing the time limit.
 

Quote

I think a possible solution for more diversity could be a slightly increased timer and/or little more starting energy to reduce waiting game. 

Increased timer or higher starting energy basically is the same change, though starting energy only really makes sense up to a certain point

Quote

Btw were drifting off like crazy here 😁

Always glad to derail a thread

 

Also that's all I have to say on this, so I'll just go back into my retirement home. See ya in another year or until I randomly stumble upon the forums again and see an interesting thread

Edited March 3 by Treim

[Fundus 18]

Another solution could be selectable difficulty levels for rPvE 9 and 10 maps like on campaign maps.

For rPvE 10 for example: Standard: Only easy bandit maps that most lvl 9 players can beat.

                                       Advanced: Anything between easy bandits and Lost Vigils insta attack maps.

                                       Expert: Maps where 1 player instantly gets attacked by air units Lost Vigils on LS                                                 maps Windhunters on bandit maps Skyfire Drakes on fire maps and so on.

 

Edited March 3 by Fundus

[Buddelmuddel 8]

On 3/3/2023 at 2:44 PM, Fundus said:

Another solution could be selectable difficulty levels for rPvE 9 and 10 maps like on campaign maps.

For rPvE 10 for example: Standard: Only easy bandit maps that most lvl 9 players can beat.

                                       Advanced: Anything between easy bandits and Lost Vigils insta attack maps.

                                       Expert: Maps where 1 player instantly gets attacked by air units Lost Vigils on LS                                                 maps Windhunters on bandit maps Skyfire Drakes on fire maps and so on.

 

I kind of looked through all the maps and sorted them. Kind of like you suggested it. Also if there are camps at t3 and if there are bosses at t3.

Offered the excel sheet on the forum, there were about 50 maps in each difficulty, took a while to do it. For more maps there might be some automated sorting system needed or a bunch of time.

Edited March 8 by Buddelmuddel

[Volin 494]

Random idea (as the problem occurs again because the motm is very easy)

How would it be to hide the BG10 Achievement behind the sub10min shoe on 9s?

That players have definitely learned the game and are ready to step up to 10s and could get encouraged via an achievement to do so.

[Metagross31 465]

20 minutes ago, Volin said:

Random idea (as the problem occurs again because the motm is very easy)

How would it be to hide the BG10 Achievement behind the sub10min shoe on 9s?

That players have definitely learned the game and are ready to step up to 10s and could get encouraged via an achievement to do so.

I personally don't think that this is a good idea. Beating a 9 very fast does not neccesarrily mean that you can beat most 10s. Also, you need a good team in order to beat a 9 in sub 10min, which most players just don't have. And you can be qualified for 10s without having 3 speedrunner friends. This would gatekeep the vast majority out of ever trying the achievement.

[Volin 494]

4 minutes ago, Metagross31 said:

 This would gatekeep the vast majority out of ever trying the achievement

That is what I personally would wish, yes. That was the topic here.

TO was "please delete it asap and forever"

Still have not much hope, but sharing other ideas as they come to my mind

 

[Dolewan 22]

Why not just put the 10s booster achievement behind the 10s time achievement...? You can only do the booster achievement when you have done BG10 under 12 minutes. 

[Volin 494]

2 hours ago, Dolewan said:

Why not just put the 10s booster achievement behind the 10s time achievement...? You can only do the booster achievement when you have done BG10 under 12 minutes. 

You can discuss details, but the general idea is not bad and would be an improvement